Don't forget to vote

[*bfine32*]

I took a leave day to get caught up on some chores, play with my liberal friends of social media, and go vote. As much as we bytch about things around here, you've got no grounds if you don't make your vote count.

Big Governor battle here in the Blue Grass State

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

Yeah, there's not really much to vote for where I live. There's like 3 spots where people are running unopposed, 2 school board spots that 3 people are running for, and that's more or less it. I don't even think there is any tax levies or anything proposed here.

If I didn't feel bad any time I didn't vote, I would almost not even bother this time. Lol

[GMDino]

(11-05-2019, 05:39 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, there's not really much to vote for where I live. There's like 3 spots where people are running unopposed, 2 school board spots that 3 people are running for, and that's more or less it. I don't even think there is any tax levies or anything proposed here.

If I didn't feel bad any time I didn't vote, I would almost not even bother this time. Lol

We have a nasty township race of all things.  Apparently a lot of underhanded stuff to split votes and get people in to a vacant seat.  And a couple new people running for school board which has been interesting.

I always vote though, primaries, everything.

[fredtoast]

Where I live the Republican primary is the election.

And I am not a Republican.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-05-2019, 06:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Where I live the Republican primary is the election.

And I am not a Republican.

So is getting the Republican candidate you hate least to win the primary more or less important to you than voting for the candidate you like most but has no chance of winning?

(Not a trap or anything, just genuinely curious. Everyone has a different priority.)

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 07:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So is getting the Republican candidate you hate least to win the primary more or less important to you than voting for the candidate you like most but has no chance of winning?

(Not a trap or anything, just genuinely curious. Everyone has a different priority.)

On the local county level I always vote in the Republican primary.  Luckily Tennessee is an open primary state.

Not too many year ago there were enough Democrats around Memphis in west Tennessee to elect a Democrat governor every once in a while.  But I often don't even waste my time on my Senators and Representatives.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 07:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So is getting the Republican candidate you hate least to win the primary more or less important to you than voting for the candidate you like most but has no chance of winning?

(Not a trap or anything, just genuinely curious. Everyone has a different priority.)

This is why I may or may not be a registered Democrat. 

[Benton]

(11-05-2019, 07:56 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So is getting the Republican candidate you hate least to win the primary more or less important to you than voting for the candidate you like most but has no chance of winning?

(Not a trap or anything, just genuinely curious. Everyone has a different priority.)

Butting in...

Kentucky is a closed primary, so for a lot of years that accounted to inaccurate numbers. If you wanted to vote, you had to register democrat.



As to the op, I was happy to see the number of libertarian candidates on the ballot in Kentucky. Nice change. It likely cost bevin though, which I'm mixed on. All in all, he wasn't as bad or corrupt as our last several governor's. My favorite quote so far is from one of his staffers : "we've learned you can be a democrat, but you can't be an asshole."

I don't know how true it is, but sums up the race none the less.

[Belsnickel]

Well, here in Virginia it was our local election year, also referred to as the off-off-year, where every seat in the General Assembly was up for grabs.

Right now it is a certainty that both chambers will flip from Republican to Democrat control. One notable result from last night was Simonds, the woman who lost the vote because of the other name being pulled out of a bowl, won in a rematch with 58% of the vote. The rural Berniecrats Democrats that have been trying to pull the party in my part of the state further to the left by pointing out Bernie's effectiveness in the area almost all (maybe all? I've been too lazy to really look) lost handily because they are condescending jackasses haven't effectively sold their message to the people in the area.

My favorite result, though was this one: https://www.whsv.com/content/news/Woman-who-gave-the-finger-to-Trumps-car-wins-election-564540681.html?fbclid=IwAR1C0zYrd8_7xMq3IlT0mu-SnNRp97Kr5sDsUZM02bA9qReQKrO2MGSlYPM

Remember the woman that flipped off Trump's motorcade, the image went viral, and she lost her job? Now she's on her county's Board of Supervisors.

[CJD]

Seems like last night was, for the most part, a success for the Democrats. They flipped North Carolina's Congress and got a Democrat Governor in one of the deepest red states in the country (pending a recanvass, I believe). Granted, Democratic Governors with Republican Super majorities in Congress and a Republican Attorney General and Republican Secretary of State can't do all that much, and Democratic Governors aren't even that unusual in Kentucky, despite it being a consistently red state during even year elections. But, regardless, it is a significant win (for the Democrats) for an incumbent Republican Governor who explicitly aligned himself with Trump to lose (even if it's by a <1% margin) in a state that Trump took by 30 points in 2016.

Mississippi will have a Republican Governor again, but that was kind of expected. It would have been an absolute disaster if Trump had lost Gubernatorial support in both Kentucky and Mississippi last night, which has been solid red (regarding Governors and Lt. Governors) since 2004.

[*Nately120*]

Don't be a dope, vope!

Side note, when I went to vote (I live in a rural area now) the lady with the book saw the LN next to my name and said "What does that mean?" I'm always throwin' folks a curve!

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 10:07 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Seems like last night was, for the most part, a success for the Democrats. They flipped North Carolina's Congress and got a Democrat Governor in one of the deepest red states in the country (pending a recanvass, I believe). Granted, Democratic Governors with Republican Super majorities in Congress and a Republican Attorney General and Republican Secretary of State can't do all that much, and Democratic Governors aren't even that unusual in Kentucky, despite it being a consistently red state during even year elections. But, regardless, it is a significant win (for the Democrats) for an incumbent Republican Governor who explicitly aligned himself with Trump to lose (even if it's by a <1% margin) in a state that Trump took by 30 points in 2016.

Mississippi will have a Republican Governor again, but that was kind of expected. It would have been an absolute disaster if Trump had lost Gubernatorial support in both Kentucky and Mississippi last night, which has been solid red (regarding Governors and Lt. Governors) since 2004.

And the GOP spin machine is in full speed spin mode complete making up numbers to "show" that Trump helped rather than hurt in KY.

They literally made up numbers and tweeted them...and Don Jr went on television to share them.

It's sad.

I mean at least when DJT was helping people get the vote out I could see the Republicans being afraid of him but when he's flailing about?  That's a kind of loyalty I don't expect from an elected official...lol.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-06-2019, 04:56 AM)Benton Wrote: Butting in...

Kentucky is a closed primary, so for a lot of years that accounted to inaccurate numbers. If you wanted to vote, you had to register democrat.



As to the op, I was happy to see the number of libertarian candidates on the ballot in Kentucky. Nice change. It likely cost bevin though, which I'm mixed on. All in all, he wasn't as bad or corrupt as our last several governor's. My favorite quote so far is from one of his staffers : "we've learned you can be a democrat, but you can't be an asshole."

I don't know how true it is, but sums up the race none the less.

That's a great line.

[Belsnickel]

(11-06-2019, 11:58 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's a great line.

And it's absolutely true. We see it around here, as well.

[NATI BENGALS]

I was one of the last ones to vote at my spot. Lady working told me we had about a 30% turnout. Pisses me off. Especially considering the massive .75 cents for every 100$ property value tax increase people voted for.

[*bfine32*]

The thing I find funny every time I go to vote, regardless of the races, there's about 2 electronic machines and 5 hard copy machines. There's always a line of folks waiting on the machines like those votes count more. Took me all of 5 minutes to vote yesterday.

[*bfine32*]

(11-06-2019, 10:07 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Seems like last night was, for the most part, a success for the Democrats. They flipped North Carolina's Congress and got a Democrat Governor in one of the deepest red states in the country (pending a recanvass, I believe). Granted, Democratic Governors with Republican Super majorities in Congress and a Republican Attorney General and Republican Secretary of State can't do all that much, and Democratic Governors aren't even that unusual in Kentucky, despite it being a consistently red state during even year elections. But, regardless, it is a significant win (for the Democrats) for an incumbent Republican Governor who explicitly aligned himself with Trump to lose (even if it's by a <1% margin) in a state that Trump took by 30 points in 2016.

Mississippi will have a Republican Governor again, but that was kind of expected. It would have been an absolute disaster if Trump had lost Gubernatorial support in both Kentucky and Mississippi last night, which has been solid red (regarding Governors and Lt. Governors) since 2004.

What you say about KY is true Bevin will be our 25th Dem Governor since 1900 as opposed to only 5 GOP. It's why i always find it amusing when folks say the parties "swapped" in the 60's. My family has been very active in state politics for generations and have always been Democrats. I am the black sheep.

[GMDino]

(11-06-2019, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The thing I find funny every time I go to vote, regardless of the races, there's about 2 electronic machines and 5 hard copy machines. There's always a line of folks waiting on the machines like those votes count more. Took me all of 5 minutes to vote yesterday.

Ours is the exact opposite:  5 electronic machines, no waiting because so many people use the paper ballots instead.  During the 2018 election when there were lots of people waiting to vote I heard a lot of people saying they don't trust the machines to count their votes.  The majority that time were voting for Trump.  Take that for what you will, but he did win our township and our county despite a heavily Democrat population.

[CJD]

(11-06-2019, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What you say about KY is true Bevin will be our 25th Dem Governor since 1900 as opposed to only 5 GOP. It's why i always find it amusing when folks say the parties "swapped" in the 60's. My family has been very active in state politics for generations and have always been Democrats. I am the black sheep.

Ah, that topic is always fun haha. I am not politically literate enough to fully quantify what exactly happened in the 60s, so I don't know that the parties swapped anything explicitly. But one think that is undeniable is that the states that were previously Democratic strongholds now vote almost exclusively Republican. The year that began: 1964.
https://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/

So, did the southern states switch their votes out of spite because a Democrat proposed the civil rights act legislation and his Vice President, also a democrat, passed it? Did the Republicans shift their strategy after the Civil Rights act to pick up the southern racists (coined: the Southern Strategy)? Did some Democrats switch parties after the civil rights act? Did the two parties kind of mix and meld based more on geography than party and re-emerge as they today? Was it a combination of all these things? Or did something completely unrelated to the Civil Rights Act cause that particular voter base shift?

I dunno. That's for the smarter people to diagnose.

The truth is Democrats and Republicans of the past were, generally speaking, more right wing than the average person is today, so they'd all probably identify as Republicans if they were plopped into modern politics anyway. So the switch of the 1960s doesn't really concern me. I focus more on the actual policies of the politicians of today, rather than discussing what the politicians of the past may have done and who gets credit for what policies.

[Belsnickel]

Y'all and your fancy electronic machines. Never even had the option to use one.